His saying, exalted and majestic is He: "And there were in the city nine men who were causing corruption in the land and were not reforming." "They said, 'Swear by Allah that we will attack him and his family at night, then we will surely say to his guardian, 'We did not witness the destruction of his family, and indeed we are truthful.'" "And they plotted a plot, and We plotted a plot while they were not aware." "So look how was the end of their plot; indeed, We destroyed them and their people all together."

Allah, exalted and majestic is He, mentioned in this verse nine men who were among the prominent and wealthy of the people. They were people of disbelief and numerous sins. The summary of their matter is that they caused corruption in the land and did not reform. 'Ata ibn Abi Rabah said: It reached me that they used to lend out dinars and dirhams.

Qadi Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: This is similar to the narration reported: the pieces of dinars and dirhams are from the corruption in the land. And "the city" refers to the community of Thamud and their village. And "the group" is one of the names for a small gathering, ten or less. And "nine men" is like saying: nine men. And these mentioned were the companions of Qidar ibn Salif, the one who killed the she-camel, and it has been previously mentioned in another context what has been said about their names.

And His saying, exalted and majestic is He: "They said, 'Swear by Allah,'" Al-Tabari narrated that it is permissible for it to be a past action in the place of the present, as if he said: 'swearing,' or 'allied by Allah.' And it is as if their saying: "We will attack him" is an oath. This interpretation is supported by the reading of Abdullah: "And they do not reform, they swore" with the omission of "they said." It is also possible - and this is the interpretation of the majority - that "they swore" is an imperative verb, indicating that some of them suggested to others to ally for this action. Thus, "they swore" is their saying according to this interpretation. And these words indicating an oath or a response are answered with 'by' even if there is no apparent preceding oath. So the 'by' in "We will attack him" is the response to that. The majority of reciters read: "We will attack him," and "then we will surely say" with the 'n' in both. And Al-Hasan, Hamzah, and Al-Kisai read with the 't' in both, and with the 't' and 'lam' in the address, meaning: you address each other with that. And Mujahid and Hamid ibn Qays read with the 'y' in both as a report. Thus, Allah mentioned in it the meaning they intended, not according to their wording.

It has been narrated regarding this verse that these nine, when three days had passed after the she-camel was slaughtered, and Prophet Salih, peace be upon him, had informed them of the coming punishment, these nine agreed and conspired to come to the house of Salih at night to kill him and his family who were close to him. They said: If he is lying in his warning, we will inflict upon him what he deserves, and if he is truthful, we would have hastened his punishment before us and relieved our souls. The narrator said: So they came and hid for that purpose in a cave near his house. It has been narrated that a rock fell upon them, crushing them all, and it has been narrated that the cave collapsed upon them, and they perished in it when their people perished. Each group did not know what had happened to the other. They had built upon the denial of the matter from the relatives of Salih who could have been angered for him. This is their plot. And plotting is akin to deception. And Allah, blessed and exalted is He, named their punishment by the name of their sin. This is a clear path, and from it is His saying, blessed and exalted is He: 'Allah mocks them' [Al-Baqarah: 15], and others besides that.

The majority read: 'مُهْلَكٌ' with a dammah on the meem and a fatha on the lam. And Aasim in the narration of Abu Bakr read it with both being opened. It has been narrated from him that the meem is opened and the lam is broken.

And 'the outcome' is a state that is necessitated by the beginning and leads to it. He means by 'the family' everyone who believed with him, as stated by Al-Hasan. The majority of the reciters read: 'Indeed, We destroyed them' with a kasrah on the alif. And Aasim, Hamzah, and Al-Kisai read: 'We destroyed them' with a fatha on the alif, which is the reading of Al-Hasan and Ibn Abi Ishaq. So 'كانَ' - according to the reading with the kasrah on the alif - is complete, and if it is considered incomplete, its news is omitted, or the news may be 'how' presented; because the beginning of the speech is for it, and it does not act - on this - 'look' in 'how', but it acts in the place of the entire sentence. And according to the reading with the fatha on the alif, it is incomplete, and its news is 'that we', and it is permissible that the news be 'how', and 'that we' be a substitute for 'the outcome', and it is permissible that 'كانَ' is complete and 'that we' be a substitute for 'the outcome'. The estimation of the question with 'how' occurs from the entirety of His saying: 'The outcome of their plotting was that We destroyed them.' And Ubayy ibn Ka'b read: 'that We destroyed them', and this supports the reading with the fatha in 'that we'.